Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Title asks the simple question. I anticipate a fun answer. Would an armed civilian law enforcement officer, a US Air Marshall, flying on a plane from Kansas City to Atlanta be allowed under the US Constitution?
Guess not
Guess not
Waiting only 13 minutes for a response, and then implying that no one has an adequate response is poor form.
The better question is what part of the consitution would ban federal air marshalls.
Guess not
Waiting only 13 minutes for a response, and then implying that no one has an adequate response is poor form.
The better question is what part of the consitution would ban federal air marshalls.
Well in this case they are covered. But US Marshals in side the States is a problem unless very specific things are all they cover. The Constitution does not give much police Power to the Federal Government.
What about the Border Patrol, FBI, DEA? Or Marshalls on flights that never cross a state border (Like San Fran to LA, or Miami to Jacksonville)
What about the Border Patrol, FBI, DEA? Or Marshalls on flights that never cross a state border (Like San Fran to LA, or Miami to Jacksonville)
The constitution does not ban the states from allowing federal agencies authority over certain areas.
As before, I think it would take a state saying "get out" to a federal agency to make the issue a constitutional matter.
It would be an interesting mental exercise to consider. Say a state tells the DEA it no longer wants them in the state, claiming ownership of drug law enforcement in the state.
It would be an interesting case to say the least.
What about the Border Patrol, FBI, DEA? Or Marshalls on flights that never cross a state border (Like San Fran to LA, or Miami to Jacksonville)
The constitution does not ban the states from allowing federal agencies authority over certain areas.
As before, I think it would take a state saying "get out" to a federal agency to make the issue a constitutional matter.
It would be an interesting mental exercise to consider. Say a state tells the DEA it no longer wants them in the state, claiming ownership of drug law enforcement in the state.
It would be an interesting case to say the least.
There already has been such a case. And the Supremes ruled in favor of the feds.
Gonzales v. Raich.
.
Title asks the simple question. I anticipate a fun answer. Would an armed civilian law enforcement officer, a US Air Marshall, flying on a plane from Kansas City to Atlanta be allowed under the US Constitution?
What about the Border Patrol, FBI, DEA? Or Marshalls on flights that never cross a state border (Like San Fran to LA, or Miami to Jacksonville)
What about the Border Patrol, FBI, DEA? Or Marshalls on flights that never cross a state border (Like San Fran to LA, or Miami to Jacksonville)
Are you saying that Air Marshalls regulate Interstate Trade?Title asks the simple question. I anticipate a fun answer. Would an armed civilian law enforcement officer, a US Air Marshall, flying on a plane from Kansas City to Atlanta be allowed under the US Constitution?
Interstate trade is the sole authority of the US Government. Both protecting it and regulating it. Armed law enforcement aboard interstate trade is not only covered it is a requirement if there is a threat, Same with international flights.
Are you saying that Air Marshalls regulate Interstate Trade?Title asks the simple question. I anticipate a fun answer. Would an armed civilian law enforcement officer, a US Air Marshall, flying on a plane from Kansas City to Atlanta be allowed under the US Constitution?
Interstate trade is the sole authority of the US Government. Both protecting it and regulating it. Armed law enforcement aboard interstate trade is not only covered it is a requirement if there is a threat, Same with international flights.